House passes controversial “cybersecurity” bill CISPA in 288-127 vote

The United States House of Representatives approved the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) by a comfortable 288 to 127 margin. Almost half of the House's Democrats joined 196 Republicans in supporting the measure.

The legislation grants companies broad legal immunity when they share information related to online threats with one another and with the federal government. Advocates argue that the legislation is needed to allow companies to quickly and efficiently share information in order to help secure their networks.

But critics such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation describe the legislation as an attack on user privacy. They worry that companies will use the broad immunity offered by CISPA to ignore other laws that protect consumer privacy. And in a veto threat issued on Tuesday, the White House echoed these arguments.

"The bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities," the Obama administration said on Tuesday.

"The US House just passed CISPA, undermining the privacy of millions of Internet users," the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a tweet. "Now we take this fight to the Senate."

"I voted against #CISPA because it does not adequately protect the civil liberties of Americans," Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) tweeted. "People deserve both privacy and security."

So far, the CISPA debate has been a repeat of last year's legislative process. An earlier version of CISPA passed the House in 2012 despite the objection of civil liberties groups, but companion legislation got bogged down in the Senate.

Seriously, the HoR should be a lot more fair about this and set up an account on Ebay, and sell votes that way. Sure, we'll be "outvoted" a lot, but at least people would have a chance and the system would be more honest.

While our government has become pretty dysfunctional overall, relatively speaking comparing the House to it's legislative brother the Senate is like comparing Glen Beck to Voltaire. Combined with the veto threat, I think we'll get a better outcome in the Senate for defeating CISPA, although I would not be surprised to hear some more "14 year old in the basement" type rhetoric from the same kind of people who think a twisted data cord inhibits the efficient travel of ones and zeroes.

The House of Representatives voted with ~69.4% in favor. Given that the dissenting votes mostly came from Democrats, and that the Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, it is very likely that the Senate would not provide a veto-proof majority (if they provide a majority at all, that is).

At what point does conflict of interest occur with a bill's sponsor?Roger's wife was until very recently CEO of Aegis LLC, a company that got a $10 billion contract from the state and stands to directly benefit from the passing of this bill.If I was a betting man I would put money on his wife being CEO purely as a shell for his interests.

Great, my congressman and all of the ones around me voted for it, way to go Steve Chabot. I just got redistricted to you and you've already decided you don't want my vote, saying this as a moderate Republican, not a left winger who wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

At what point does conflict of interest occur with a bill's sponsor?Roger's wife was until very recently CEO of Aegis LLC, a company that got a $10 billion contract from the state and stands to directly benefit from the passing of this bill.If I was a betting man I would put money on his wife being CEO purely as a shell for his interests.

Considering that it is fairly common practice for bills to be written by corporations, through their lobbyists, and submitted largely verbatim, I don't think conflict of interest is an issue at all in congress.

If the president has already stated he would veto this, aren't members of the house more likely to vote aye than if he remained silent?

If a bill passes and it is hated by the public, the people that voted for it are leaving themselves open during re-election time. If the bill is almost guaranteed not to pass, members of the house can vote aye and please their lobbyists while still not having to deal with the full repercussions if the bill came to pass. Better yet, if another problem comes up they can claim they tried to pass the bill and it would have prevented X.

I just think by the president stating he would veto it make it a lot easier to vote for it.

Great, my congressman and all of the ones around me voted for it, way to go Steve Chabot. I just got redistricted to you and you've already decided you don't want my vote, saying this as a moderate Republican, not a left winger who wouldn't have voted for him anyway.

Fortunately my congressman was on the right side, as usual. Peter DeFazio has been a pretty strong advocate for sane internet law, not that it has made that much difference against the tide of corporate owned votes.

Veto override needs 2/3 majority in the House and Senate. Not sure it will have that in the Senate.

It is not clear what will happen in the senate, that's true. Which is why I didn't comment on it. The veto isn't relevant until it passes the senate anyway. The bill that passed the house has a bit of appeasement added, as compared to the original senate version, so while it isn't clear that there will be enough to override in the senate, it isn't clear that there won't be either.

To be extra clear, the "they" I was referring to was the house. We don't know what will happen in the senate yet.

I'm all for transparency. I'm defiantly against immunity to persecution if you blatantly screw up and sharing my private data as part of that process.

I'm not an American, but we have an eerie ability to be "inspired" by the USA, so this worries me as well. I personally think that this _should_ be subject to a veto by Obama as has been talked about before, because messing with immunity to persecution is a very big deal.

"The bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities," the Obama administration said on Tuesday.

Of course not. The whole idea is to be able to identify people who say certain things. I haven't read the bill, but it might be OK providing the bill guarantees that all such information-gathering is equivalent to improper search and seizure and that therefore none of it may be used as evidence against a person in a criminal or civil proceeding at either the state or Federal level. Without such a guarantee, I don't see it holding up to free-speech Constitutional muster. Plus, we already have laws against certain forms of speech--like threats made against Federal officials, for instance. Besides, will someone be kind enough to clue me in on what "cybersecurity data" is? I really don't know what it is. That in itself is troubling.

Our Government is a total POS !!! Selling out the whole Nation for a buck and their Ego.

Thank you. May I add, "Danged buncha weasels with lined pockets and brown noses"? Yes, I may. For the moment... /rant (Please excuse me for interrupting an otherwise intelligent discussion. Now, back to the calm and reasoned.)

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.